Obama promotes nuclear-free world

[Sabretooth]

I believe that possessing nukes has actually helped to stabilize relations between India and Pakistan as well, but I must admit that my knowledge on that subject is quite limited. Sabre?

To a large extent, yes. Any sort of direct conflict between the two nations is now out of question thanks to nuclear power. I can't really imagine a war between the two nations after 1971 to start with, but it's completely impossible now, that's for sure.

 

Regarding the North Korea argument, I'll say that as much as it seems so, North Korea is not insane. Irritating sons of bitches perhaps, but not insane by any measure. It takes skill to do what they've done there, create a complete slave of a nation that unquestioningly bends to your will and literally worships you day in and day out. Kim Jong-Il may look like a psychopath, but to get where he is and keep the position, you have to have brains.

 

And anybody with brains and in possession of a nuclear state is going to know that attack is a stupid decision. North Korea is in no position to make any international move whatsoever, and I believe Kim knows that. If they have nuclear weaponry, it is solely for their own protection. North Korea has many enemies and as I've said before, there's no better shield than a good nuclear missile at hand.

[CommanderQ]

 

Regarding the North Korea argument, I'll say that as much as it seems so, North Korea is not insane. Irritating sons of bitches perhaps, but not insane by any measure. It takes skill to do what they've done there, create a complete slave of a nation that unquestioningly bends to your will and literally worships you day in and day out. Kim Jong-Il may look like a psychopath, but to get where he is and keep the position, you have to have brains.

 

And anybody with brains and in possession of a nuclear state is going to know that attack is a stupid decision. North Korea is in no position to make any international move whatsoever, and I believe Kim knows that. If they have nuclear weaponry, it is solely for their own protection. North Korea has many enemies and as I've said before, there's no better shield than a good nuclear missile at hand.

 

 

I agree, Kim Jong-Il looks pyscho, but is not in any way...psycho. That makes him all the more dangerous with Nuclear weapons. But, as you said, perhaps his nukes are for defense only, seeing as no one in the world is crazy enough...yet...to engage in a nuclear war with a country that has nukes as well, it's suicidal. That is one reason Russia didn't nuke NATO during the Cold War, they knew they'd retaliate.

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it; we can start it...

sorry obalmy, but youre certainly not the first ones for this idea.

also, click

 

...

the actual ad

^ just choose nz and the year as 1991 or earlier

also, click pass it on to see a preview of the next ad. its a slice of a former nz prime minister david lange's speech.

 

personally, i reckon countries should all get rid of nukes. but thats not gonna happen for a long time, so keeping nukes for defense but not using them seems fine to me.

[Adavardes]

I think the presence of nuclear weapons in the world is a matter of choice. Do we want the threat of one man flipping and pulling the trigger, causing instantaneous world destruction and the nuclear winter that would follow, for the sake of temporary security from our enemies, or do we want the chance of instant incineration removed from the equation, so we can actually try to fix things instead of sitting around holding our guns to each other's temples, hoping the next guy to join in has it screwed on tight enough not to just end it all?

 

At least the prospect of self destruction is slow when you remove nuclear war, and the argument that nukes are preventing such self-destruction is like saying that a ticking time bomb is preventing a weight-triggered mechanism that would burn down the whole house by sitting there. Something's going to happen eventually, how about we take the option that's less irreversable?

[Jae Onasi]

As long as nations like Iran and N. Korea have or are trying to make nukes, we aren't going to give ours up. In the ideal world, we wouldn't have nukes. This is not the ideal world. We have complete morons and total fruitcakes with no sense of right and wrong (or a very perverted view of what's right/wrong) running countries and making nukes. There is no reasoning with someone like Ahmadinejad or Kim. Countries can't bring themselves to even part with chemical weapons, so I have zero confidence that we'll be entirely rid of nuclear ones.

[Tommycat]

Genuine curiosity:

How many countries with nuclear arms have had an invasion take place(ie they were the victims of an invasion)?

[Rake]

Genuine curiosity:

How many countries with nuclear arms have had an invasion take place(ie they were the victims of an invasion)?

 

Its true that nukes act as a very effective shield, however, like Advardes said; how long until one, just one, insane person gets a finger on a nuke? It seems like its inevitable.

 

@Jae, the U.S. was the first to develop a nuke, so would you consider Oppenheimer and the rest perverted morally? As much as I hate having more nukes in the world I can't blame Iran/N. Korea for developing nukes; as they have many enemies, and a nuke is the perfect defense (until someone sets one off...).

[Sabretooth]

Its true that nukes act as a very effective shield, however, like Advardes said; how long until one, just one, insane person gets a finger on a nuke? It seems like its inevitable.

About as long as the first insane person gets enough power to rule an entire nation. If there's somebody with the smarts and/or muscles to get to the top, they're going to know at least one thing, and that is that nuclear missiles aren't toys.

 

People don't get to the top by being insane, however much they would look like it. They require popular and bureaucratic support (or military support, in some cases). You cannot have an "insane" leader without an insane retinue following him, and perhaps vice versa.

 

Add to that the constant activity of the world's top intelligence agencies, the NSA, the FBI, the Mossad and so on. They aren't just going to watch by while an "insane" leadership with a mind for nuclear holocaust takes power.

 

Sure it sounds like a fragile reasoning, but it does make sense. You don't have comic book supervillains running nations, as much as the media would like you believe.

[Tommycat]

Sure it sounds like a fragile reasoning, but it does make sense. You don't have comic book supervillains running nations, as much as the media would like you believe.

 

Darn it. I had my cape picked out and everything. Can I at least be the guy with shifty eyes telling the leader what to say?

 

Oops Kavars... serious discussion...

 

*paints serious face on himself*

To be effective as a weapon you have to have a weapon beyond what the other side has.

[Darth Avlectus]

So far as I know, we can't all just get along because there will always be someone who disagrees with someone else. It's not possible to please everyone, or be everyone's friend. Though Ozzy's song "children of the grave" does seem quite relevant to both this and the issue of the thread. (go check it out sometime for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about)

 

Sounds nice, in theory, but it seems like a complete pipe dream, really. Both the U.S. and Russia have said this countless times, to the point where it's a complete cliche.

 

There will always be nuclear weapons, no matter how much a nations encourages another country to dismantle their arsenal. The U.S. has always been hypocritical; warning and even threatening developing nations bent on developing nuclear weapons, whilst the U.S. clearly has enough warheads left from the Cold War to start a nuclear holocaust.

 

I completely agree, we live in the real world and not an ideal one. It would take something with power beyond anything the world has ever known to successfully be able to take all the nukes away. I won't hold my breath on that one, though. That power might just as well become the new world power at that point.

 

It's a nice idea, but I don't think that we, in our lifetimes, will see a world without nuclear weapons (that is, of course, unless something even more destructive is developed).

Which I would not put outside the realm of possibility either. I just hope there isn't some perfected version of Tesla's seismic control device lying around somewhere. Or something to control the climate. I hope this stays only imaginary.

 

Nuclear weapons seem almost as much a deterrent as a weapon; why have a world war if there is the threat of being nuked back to the stone age?

 

Dismantling the inane amounts of nuclear weapons that we stored up during the Cold War is a good idea, but always seems to be much harder in practice.

A very fundamental question indeed. I do like your perspective how you err on the more peaceful side of things, but can put that aside to see the reality of things.

 

I'm surprised Obama could come up with something like that. Actually, I'm growing more and more sceptical of Obama since he's in office.

I never trusted him, or any other president for that matter. MY MY MY...Are you becoming...cynical?

 

 

The more people who have fingers on a nuclear submarine or a nuclear weapon, the higher the chance of nuclear holocaust. Imo, is world war 3 better, or is completely destroying the world?

 

Kind of difficult to say when you consider pastrami X had it right on.

 

Anti-humanists would say the latter and be done with it. Seems like war is inevitable in any case.

 

@ general idea:

 

Also, if eleiminating nukes from the world would cause it fall apart, would that not be progress in the BACKWARDS direction? I hear all the time about how "progressive" stuff is, but most of the time it has an unrealistic positive connotation or light attatched. Progress can be good or bad. Eliminating nukes might get rid of the potential for the disasters associated with nuclear detonation, but the nutjobs in power would then focus upon the lower levels of warfare with impunity and relative immunity of sorts. Gureilla warfare basically akin to, say how savagely and brutally the Native Americans fought would ensue (give or take perhaps a few other similar wars in other parts of the world in various historical time periods), tribe to tribe, but with an enormous (major understatement) magnifying lens. Nobody would be able to get anything done with so much fighting going on--be it to domineer, or to just defend and survive.

 

Basically we'd be safe from nukes but now that the threat is gone, it would sort of escalate and become anarchious. We'd never be able to concentrate on a peaceful resolution because everyone would be too bust brawling with each other until the strongest ruled the world again. It would only be a matter of time, too, until nukes were back again as well, I think.

 

Maybe this is the thing that has been prophecised about? --The sort of doomsday armageddon? Sure seems like a morbid countdown to it. Let's face it, we're pretty much SCREWED any way you look at it...

 

@ Web Rider: Hm. I guess I'm strting to see what you meant before. Y'know, about hopes for the human race? Meh, but, what are we gonna do about it, though? It seems like war is just simply in our nature. War is a sentient evolution to the strife of nature, if you *really* think about it. Sad, isn't it?

 

Being secured from war with the threat of nukes is VERY precarious. I'm sure everyone here would agree with that???

 

Well sane is the key word there. How long until we get an insane guy with his finger on the button? The more nukes out there the more the chance that one guy is going to press it.

 

Edit: Or not even that. In the cold war a NATO exercise made the Russians think nukes were headed there way, luckily, the guy in charge of their nuclear arsenal didn't launch them even though it was his job to. What if something like this were to occur again?

It probably WILL. We will basically just keep getting lucky until one is ballsy enough to pull the trigger/push the big red button. Not to sound morbid, just being a realist.

 

Um... even Bush said he would reduce nukes. He left them in place, but DID get some old boomers(SSBM) converted to guided missile boats(SSGM) under his watch.

 

Interesting. So now it'll be in the water instead of the sky?

 

So what you're saying is that it's a peace offering in order to repair a relationship? That sounds familiar, it's what I said

 

_EW_

 

meh' date=' your "olive branch" sounded too wishy-washy for me:xp:[/quote']

 

@ both above:

 

...hey, we could use a little humor here. Helps lighten the mood a bit, right?

 

Rather than asking nations to disarm, Obama should really be focusing on building a missile shield where it matters...in the USA. With North Korea's government having lost any sense of sanity, it's important that America become untouchable by missile attack. And no, I'm not talking about "Star Wars". I'm talking about a serious, well-maintained anti-missile ring around our two coasts.

 

You might be interested to know that there is some kind of technology in the early 1930s Nikola Tesla came up with. A continuous energy particulate emission in the shape of a sphere. It was one of the modes of some supposed machine built at that time period. The 'machine' I speak of is some kind of weapon and it is suspected to be in Russia... I was in the hands of the Soviets for awhile.

 

Murph, I wouldn't count on that you'd know exactly where but, you've probably heard of it, no?

 

 

<snip>

Because Obama SAID THAT. Perhaps you should read the transcript? He said he was working to protect the US fully from nuclear war - and if that's the case, then who cares? We're invincible.

Oh yeah? Invincible? How's that?

 

 

personally, i reckon countries should all get rid of nukes. but thats not gonna happen for a long time, so keeping nukes for defense but not using them seems fine to me.

 

Then it'll be a worldwide gureilla arms race. I suppose world war with small weapons is a small price to pay to avoid planet wide incineration. Still, it doesn't look like a very hot prospect either. Just thought I'd point that out.

 

I think the presence of nuclear weapons in the world is a matter of choice. Do we want the threat of one man flipping and pulling the trigger, causing instantaneous world destruction and the nuclear winter that would follow, for the sake of temporary security from our enemies, or do we want the chance of instant incineration removed from the equation, so we can actually try to fix things instead of sitting around holding our guns to each other's temples, hoping the next guy to join in has it screwed on tight enough not to just end it all?

 

At least the prospect of self destruction is slow when you remove nuclear war, and the argument that nukes are preventing such self-destruction is like saying that a ticking time bomb is preventing a weight-triggered mechanism that would burn down the whole house by sitting there. Something's going to happen eventually, how about we take the option that's less irreversable?

 

I'm certainly not averse to that, but I just seriously don't think the world is civilized enough (in the hypothetical situation of all nukes gone which you and others speak of) to ever achieve much good, either. It's like barriers holding vicious animals from each other: once removed, what is to stop the nations of the world from going on a rampage?

 

This is, quite simply, a pipe dream. But certainly no points off for having a dream and ultimately wishing for something good.

 

As long as nations like Iran and N. Korea have or are trying to make nukes, we aren't going to give ours up. In the ideal world, we wouldn't have nukes. This is not the ideal world. We have complete morons and total fruitcakes with no sense of right and wrong (or a very perverted view of what's right/wrong) running countries and making nukes. There is no reasoning with someone like Ahmadinejad or Kim. Countries can't bring themselves to even part with chemical weapons, so I have zero confidence that we'll be entirely rid of nuclear ones.

 

Its true that nukes act as a very effective shield, however, like Advardes said; how long until one, just one, insane person gets a finger on a nuke? It seems like its inevitable.

 

@Jae, the U.S. was the first to develop a nuke, so would you consider Oppenheimer and the rest perverted morally? As much as I hate having more nukes in the world I can't blame Iran/N. Korea for developing nukes; as they have many enemies, and a nuke is the perfect defense (until someone sets one off...).

 

And to reinforce what Jae was saying, as long as there is complete dip-****s in charge (which may never cease), we are still in constant danger. There is no practical way we'd rid the world of weapons of mass destruction. Even in the hypothetical situation that we DID, aside from the world wide bedlam that most likely ensue as a result (until the strong ruled with an iron fist), there is no 100% sure way to EVER prevent them from ever being created again.

 

We have to work with what is and not as we'd like it to be.

[Sabretooth]

Though Ozzy's song "children of the grave" does seem quite relevant to both this and the issue of the thread. (go check it out sometime for those of you who don't know what I'm talking about)

It's Black Sabbath dammit, Black Sabbath, Black Sabbath, Black Sabbath, Black Sabbath.

 

Why the hell does Ozzy get credited solo for every Black Sabbath song dammit

[Darth Avlectus]

It's Black Sabbath dammit, Black Sabbath, Black Sabbath, Black Sabbath, Black Sabbath.

 

Why the hell does Ozzy get credited solo for every Black Sabbath song dammit

 

Because Tony Iommi was a douche bag. Bill Ward and Geezer Butler have both even regretted siding with him against Ozz. And since Ozz wrote the songs since he had to sing them, we-hell.... history will remember them that way. Eewps! That's right, it's a conspiracy!

 

Actually in all fairness, if there was not a Black Sabbath there would not have Been an Ozzy; likewise if there had not been an Ozzy, there wouldn't have been a Black Sabbath either. Circular reasoning fallacy, MY FOOT!

 

Admittedly, I do crank out tunes from the early days of the Sabs on those rare occasions I ever get my guitar or one of my basses out of my closet to play. However, I don't do it near enough to really be great at it.

[mur'phon]

Rather than asking nations to disarm, Obama should really be focusing on building a missile shield where it matters...in the USA. With North Korea's government having lost any sense of sanity, it's important that America become untouchable by missile attack. And no, I'm not talking about "Star Wars". I'm talking about a serious, well-maintained anti-missile ring around our two coasts.

 

Disagreed, the reason nuclear detterent work is because any war will have no winners. Disregarding the fact that missile defence is notoriously unreliable, the problem with a missile shield is that it makes nuclear weapons useable again. Even if you only make a shield capable of stoping a couple of missiles from rogue states, it will increase tensions betwen the U.S and the bigger nuclear powers (China, Russia) to ridicolus levels, think Europe after the balance of power was destroyed by the forming of alliances.

[EnderWiggin]

Oh yeah? Invincible? How's that?

 

Oh, pardon me for not having the combined knowledge of the United States anti-nuclear research team.

 

Specifics are not accessible, thanks

 

_EW_

[Darth Avlectus]

Oh, pardon me for not having the combined knowledge of the United States anti-nuclear research team.

 

Specifics are not accessible, thanks

 

_EW_

 

[Sabretooth]

Because Tony Iommi was a douche bag.

This subdiscussion is finished.

[Totenkopf]

Because forcing Vietnam to be one nation when they clearly didn't want to be worked out REAL well.

 

You mean N. Vietnam failed too?!

 

Obama's not a fool. He's not going to eliminate our nukes while everyone else still is holding on to theirs.

 

Well, the first statement is highly debatable. The second contains a kernel of truth. I think it would take a lot more than the 4-8 years BO will get to achieve that kind of goal. However, what is he willing to do (rhetorical question) to offset the obvious weakness his position conveys to the world? Seems to me that the world is taking its measure of the man and finding him lacking, both his economic and military stands, all the while acknowledging his apparent celebrity status.

 

So, do we believe this dangerously naive sounding BO or whatever new rhetoric he rolls out? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtwRcZXrz0k

[Darth Avlectus]

Well, only time will tell. But I said it before, he's just a man. This is proving it.

 

I'm sure N.Korea and Iran's leaders are just loving the video, though. I don't believe it. I do think he'll try, but that this will be hampered severely. Beset on all sides.

 

...It could be that he is telling the truth so far as he knows because he is disconnected from what his string-pullers are doing/after. Nevertheless, anyone with a reasonable amount of common sense knows something of this scale could not be achieved in 4, not even 8 years of his being in office (assuming he gets elected again for a second term--big if).

 

Example: We're back over in Aghanistan. Are we doing what we "should have done"? I thought capturing Bin Laden and chronies was our prime objective? Nothing on that has really been mentioned yet. Maybe alluded to.

 

It would seem that anyone voting on the hope that the war would just end as soon as Barack hit office got suckered. But really, is anyone surprised? Sure the guy is overseas right now acting all apologetic, however, while appeasement is going on here...it's what is behind the scenes which we don't see that is going to unfold. So I guess it is similar in this case. We'll wait and see how it plays out. He might be just as much a war time prez as Bush was. Sure, give the guy a chance. I am; I'm waiting, too. I have a right to be skeptical. Cynical.